WHO lamenting about terminology? [BE/BA News]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2020-12-07 16:35 (728 d 00:17 ago) – Posting: # 22124
Views: 2,707

Dear Helmut,

❝ Coming back to the WHO’s rant:

The calculation of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the mean test/comparator ratio for the primary PK parameters should not be confused with the two one-sided t-tests employed to reject the null hypothesis of non-equivalence. The end result is the same, but these are not the same calculations.


❝ IMHO, they are just fed up reading “TOST” whilst the CI inclusion approach acc. to the GL was actually performed.


Totally correct to lament about that fact, I think. It should unequivocally described in the protocol or the SAP which calculations will be done :yes:. The CI approach will be the favorite I think. It is requested in all guidelines about BE studies, if I dont err.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,428 posts in 4,694 threads, 1,598 registered users;
26 visitors (0 registered, 26 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:53 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics is the art of never having to say you’re wrong.
Variance is what any two statisticians are at.    C.J. Bradfield

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5